How do you define 'Careless Driving'?

On Monday, new rules come into force for sentencing careless drivers. Drivers who injure or even kill others through lack of attention can now be jailed for up to five years, as opposed to the previous maximum sentence of a fine and disqualification. This actually sounds quite sensible legislation for a change, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. What, precisely, distinguishes 'careless' from mere 'mistake'?

Chatting on your mobile while hurtling along the motorway is dangerous, and presents a very real risk for others around you. Hopefully, we'll all agree with that. But is it as dangerous, or is it even dangerous at all, to receive a call when sat in stationary traffic? (The law says it is - you're not guaranteed to avoid a conviction unless your handbrake is on and your engine turned off. ) But phone have specific legislation already - this new piece is intended for other instances of lack of attention behind the wheel. The Ministry of Justice gives these examples: reading a text message, glancing at a map, eating, drinking, tuning a radio, putting on make up. I'm not into makeup (well, not that I'll confess in this blog anyway) so I'll go along with the flow on that one - it sounds pretty distracting to me. Reading a text message? Well yep, I'll give them that one too. I'm also somewhat renowned for getting lost a fair bit, and it takes all my concentration and more to understand a map, so that ones okay in my book too. But hang on, whats this? Tuning the radio? Eh? Our Galaxy has a button for this on one of the steering wheel spokes, in fact its a further stretch of the thumb to get to the horn than to switch stations! Thats 'careless'? Ummm, I dont think so. Eating too - I genuinely cant imagine a scenario where chewing on a Mars bar can affect my ability to react to things around me. And drinking - can anyone point out why my car has a cupholder, if not to accommodate a can of pop?

You cant legislate for stupidity, and I can think of many examples of drivers who have their full attention on the road but who I think are much more dangerous than a 'decent' driver sucking on a Polo mint. Seemingly, though, NuLiebour want to maintain their record of introducing on average one new law per day in power, and it was just our turn again. The problem (not unusually) lies in what isn't said. Will smoking a cigarette be a valid reason for a prison sentence? Sneezing?

Motoring Freebie!

Just a quick note - follow the link below and click [06] at the foot of the page for ten free 'motoring tracks' courtesy of Renault. No, they dont care whether you actually own a Renault. Lucky, that...

Renault and The Independent

Seven Deadly Motoring Sins

According to a recent survey, UK drivers are officially motoring sinners. And used car website Motors.co.uk has asked the opinions of nearly a thousand drivers to find out what sins are being commited on the UK's roads. The seven deadly sins were outlined as follows;

Gluttony - Eating and drinking whilst behind the wheel
Greed - Hogging more than one lane
Envy - Checking out another persons motor
Lust - Getting amorous in the car/checking out another driver
Sloth - Lazy driving/cutting corners
Pride - Checking appearance/applying make up in rear view mirror
Wrath - Road rage

The results showed that vanity accounted for more than half the sinners as 55 percent of drivers admitted to putting on make-up or checking their appearance in the rear-view mirror whilst driving. Only five percent admitted to being amorous in their cars whilst 60 percent confessed to having lustful thoughts about other drivers. Another 60 percent of drivers admitted to getting green-eyed over other peoples motors whilst the most percentage of drivers - 77 percent - admitted to eating behind the wheel.

Commenting on the findings, Katie Armitage from motors.co.uk, said: "It soon became clear after seeing the results generated by our latest survey that we are indeed a nation of sinners when it comes to being behind the wheel. It seems that drivers were more open about admitting to eating behind the wheel than with more serious offences like road rage, which we know is on the rise. Although this survey was conducted with humour in mind, the results have clearly shown that modern day driving distractions are a real issue and bugbear for all drivers, so we hope that by highlighting the issues drivers may now be more aware of the sins they are committing on a daily basis."

Bandwagon -v- 'Gas'wagon

Gas guzzlers. Dontcha just hate 'em. Ummmm, well No, actually. I mean, why should I? If some people need, or even just want, to drive around in larger vehicles why the hell should it matter a jot to me?

Trouble is, thats not good enough for the sandal-wearers. They want anything with a 4x4 badge on it to be removed from our roads under pain of social leprosy. Here's the 'manifesto' from the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s.

"Our goals are to make driving a big 4x4 as socially unacceptable as drink-driving and to increase taxes on big 4x4 vehicles, including a CO2-based congestion charge in London, variable parking rates and increases in road tax. We are demanding an end to 4x4 advertisements in the mainstream media. We will pressure the UK government to agree to binding emissions targets for the auto manufacturers. We will also work towards visionary and sustainable transport solutions."

How can anyone not find that to be utterly flippin' barking? Dont these cretins understand how completely barmy such statements sound to the mainstream public? They cant even manage to define what a 4x4 is - their best description is a basic shape, for God's sake! Now forgive the stereotyping, but have you ever noticed that these people fit a particular mould? Long, unwashed hair, unemployed and welfare-dependant, wear sandals and wooly jumpers, armfuls of similarly workshy kids? What socio-economic subgroup happily fits all those descriptions? 'Non-conformists' works for me - these are people who dont comfortably 'fit' with societal norms and, in their resentment at being 'different' they need a cause to champion. Today, its 4x4's. If the rest of us cave in to their hare-brained concepts, they'd need another cause tomorrow or they wouldn't have any meaning to their lives.

Its difficult to view the people within these campaigns with anything but candidates for 'sectioning' simply because of their radical level of intolerance for those around them. 'Greenpeace', one of (if not the) most completely removed from sanity mobs around, have a video online where colleagues of a chap spit in his coffee, stick a sign on his back saying "I am a pr*ck", and mutter "W**ker" under their breath as he walks past. Whats his 'crime'? He owns a Toyota Landcruiser! At the risk of sounding serious again, are we as a nation that consumed with hate that we find lunacy like that acceptable? Because of his choice of car? Intolerance, sad but true, breeds intolerance - I think its high time people like this were lined up and shot at dawn.

Minimise your fuel consumption

For once, a 'serious' post, because like everyone else I think I'm being mugged every time I fill up. At least Dick Turpin wore a soddin' mask. I did some reading and was more than a little sceptical, so I did some experiments. Believe it or not, the following principles could add up to 25% to the distance your average tank will take you. In my two and a half litre diesel Land Rover, I went from 22mpg average to 27, but in the wife's Galaxy (a new 2.0 TDCi), I improved an already impressive 40mpg to a fantastic 49! Yes, I got there slower, and I was more than a bit hot and sweaty, but the smugness was worth it...

Check your tyre pressures AT LEAST weekly - underinflated tyres increase drag and could increase your consumption by as much as 15%!






Boot full of crap? Sling it out - that weight is costing you a small fortune to drag around with you. In fact, sling out the wife too.






Boring, yes, but stick to the speed limits. Did you know the average saloon uses TWENTY per cent more fuel at 80mph than at 70?






Yes its a pain in the dangly bits unbolting it, but that unused roofrack is adding to your drag, reducing economy by as much as 15%






Change up to a higher gear earlier - try and keep below 2,500RPM (even lower on a diesel) and you'll see amazing results






Dont speed away from the lights just to brake heavily for the next set - drive according to the road ahead






Open windows increase drag at speed, so keep 'em shut. And dont even THINK of turning on the air-con, which costs up to 5MPG by itself!







Give it a go. And if it doesn't work, tell it to someone who gives a monkeys :)

Fuel Price falls - but rather slowly

In December last year, the AA reported that prices had "soared" by 7% for petrol and 11% for diesel in the last three months. At that time, the average price for unleaded was £1.02.8 and diesel was £1.08.0. If they but knew... Over the following six months, oil inexorably rose, and with it, our price at the pumps. Only a few short weeks ago a barrel of oil reached $147, and us poor beleagured motorists were having to find as much as £1.35 a litre for diesel fuel. Its almost a relief, then, to top up my Land Rover today at a 'mere' £1.22 a litre. But hang on, isn't a barrel of crude changing hands at just £128 dollars at the moment? Something doesn't smell right, and it isn't the diesel I just spilled down my trousers...

During June and July, crude oil price rises came almost daily, and forecourt prices rose almost in parallel. At one stage, petrol rose 5p a litre nationally in just 48 hours, mirroring oil price rises spurred on by huge increases in demand from China, fears in the Middle East, and demand from large-scale speculators. Since that peak, oil prices have fallen over $30 a barrel, yet fuel prices have so far fallen off a mere 10p a litre. According to the AA, wholesale prices for petrol coming into the UK have fallen 18 per cent and 22 per cent for diesel. The fall at the pump is under 10%. What's going on? As ever, the dear old British motorist is being bent over and rogered mercilessly. Having been 'conditioned' to accept fuel at £6 a gallon, why would fuel producers want to back away from that? Unlike most markets, the demand for fuel isn't hugely affected by price - we 'need' it, so we'll have to pay for it whatever it costs. Many economists believe that we will still hit the $175 barrel this year, some even forecast $200. When and if those rises occur, all the more likely with the current conflict in Russia, the pump prices will rise pro-rata with the current price, and anyone who imagines that pump prices have 'room' to absorb oil rises (on the basis that they've never fallen low enough to get back in touch) is going to be sorely disappointed.

In the first half of this year, BP made profits of over thirteen BILLION dollars, up 23% on the same period last year. Exxon, Shell, and Total all filed similarly breathtaking profits. So much for their laments that they are simply passing on increased costs. OPEC, the cartel which seemingly exists for no other reason than to extract maximum revenue for its products, claims that they are 'safeguarding' the future of oil supplies by limiting output, but conveniently neglect to mention that keeping supplies low means keeping prices high. So, who's on the motorists side in this issue, looking out for his interests, protecting him from the vultures who would rape his wallet to satisfy their own obscenely-rich shareholders?

Well, dont bank on the Government to help you out. Their own income from fuel duties has increased significantly, despite crying crocodile tears for motorists and 'delaying' the 2p escalator increase. This is because while fuel duty is a constant figure, VAT is also then charged on both the fuel cost and the duty element. Although its fallen off - marginally - since, the total tax on a litre of fuel was at one stage an outrageous 81.5%! The billions in extra unexpected revenue from VAT on higher prices has more than offset the 'loss' to the Government in not robbing us of a further couple of pence duty. Actually, HMG is eyeing a bigger prize - a 'windfall' tax on those massive profits BP just proudly declared. To be honest, its difficult to decide who deserves that money least, but at least if the pigs in Whitehall get their snouts in the trough it might benefit the country in general.

Bloody cyclists!

How often have you been stuck in a line of slow-moving traffic, and when you got to the front you discovered an artic that cant pass some muppet on his pushbike? Twenty feet off to the left, there's a custom-built expensive 'cycle path' but the lycra clad halfwit decides that he'd much rather travel down the road and hold up half the damn county. Frustrating? You betcha.

How about being sat waiting at a red traffic light and watched a pushbike come flying through flat out, completely oblivious to the lights? Frustrating? You betcha.

Amazingly, though, you dont seem to find other cyclists condemning these actions. The cycle paths are "slower", "less convenient". Waiting at a red light is "dangerous", as the cyclist then has to pull away at the same time as the car alongside him. Somehow, then, cyclists are some evolutionary step above the rest of us, and shouldn't be thought to have to ride with consideration to other traffic, or even obey traffic law! Its small wonder, then, that many car drivers view cyclists as a 'sub class' and dont give them much room.

While writing this blog, I came across the following response to a cyclist who stated that he didn't want preferential treatment, just fair treatment. I've paraphrased it here:

First off, other vehicles that use roads pay for the privilege. They
pay licensing fees, fuel taxes, and in some cases, tolls. You want to
skate away, tax free.

Second off, if it weren't for driver training and licensing, there
would be some good drivers and bad drives just like there are good
pedalers and bad pedalers. But you want to use the roads without any
driver training and licensing.

Thirdly... Where the Amish live, they get signs warning vehicles that there are
slow moving buggies in the area. Where the deer live, there are signs
warning about the places they cross. By schools, there are warnings.
By farms, there are warnings. By truck entrances to roadways, there
are warnings. Near construction sites, there are warnings. If your
vehicle can't keep up to roadway speeds, you need warnings. Any other
vehicle traveling at the speeds that you travel at are required to
have a large, orange triangle on the back of it. If you are a
vehicle, you should have one too, unless you want special rules for
you.

Other vehicles have minimum age requirements to drive on a public
street. Do you want that for bikes or do you want special rules.

Other vehicles are required to have headlights, turn lights, and brake
lights. Do you want them too, or do you want special rules.

Other vehicles are required to have minimum tread depth on tires. I
think it's 3/32nds MINIMUM. Do you want to carry around that much
rubber or do you want special rules.

So yes, you do want/need special rules.

Add in number plates that this person obviously forgot to mention, and I think that about sums it up!

Private Parking tickets and the law

Nobody wants a parking ticket, but (as in every other field) it pays to be aware of your rights when confronted with seedy little scrotes trying to extract money from you. Much as Private Parking Companies (PPC's) would have you believe otherwise, there is a clear and distinct difference between a ticket issued by a police officer or a council warden and those issued by PPC's.

Note: This is a rather long and involved topic, and even by condensing it hugely this is still going to be a long blog post. At the bottom I'll give some links to some other online resources where you can investigate your position a little more and hopefully end up with all the information you need to make a decision on whether you should pay or not (hopefully not!).

The parking tickets issued on a private piece of land, for example an Asda car park or anywhere not on the public highway, are not actually 'parking tickets' in the full meaning of the word, but are instead private 'invoices'. In essence, these invoices state 'we let you park here in exchange for following our rules, and you agreed to pay us some money if you didn't follow them. We've decided you didn't follow the rules, so now pay us the money you agreed'. Hang on, I agreed? When?! Well, when you read the terms and conditions of parking and then decided to park. The PPC's position is that you agreed to be bound by those conditions, and that all they're doing now is to ask you to make the payment that the conditions said you would pay.

Now we get to the fun part. The PPC is well aware that many (if not most) people would not pay an 'invoice' based on this, so they decide to play a little smoke and mirrors trick on you. Their tickets will bear a remarkable resemblance to an 'official' genuine parking ticket, and thats not an accident. Yellow front with black and yellow chevrons on it. Big bold letters saying Fixed Penalty Charge or similar? On, and a line that says "it is an offence to remove or interfere with this ticket"? The closer the PPC can get their ticket to look like a 'real' one, the better the chance that the victim will just pay up. So, why do these companies choose to misrepresent themselves like this? Because the 1991 Road Traffic Act has specific provisions for genuine tickets, notably ones that require the owner of a car to identify the driver, and for a penalty to be applied to the owner of a car rather than its driver. It cannot be said firmly enough that the RTA does NOT apply to PPC's, even though the PPC will assure you that it does.

So lets look at those 'terms and conditions' for a moment. In Morrisons car park, for example, you'll often see conditions that your parking is limited to two hours. Depending on how close they are to other shops, you might also be told that you cant leave the premises while parked there, and that you'll only park 'properly' within marked bays, etc. Being (reasonably) reputable, they'll not be among the ones that hide their signs behind a tree, or print them in tiny letters ten feet up a pole, as you'll find in some smaller parks. So are these conditions 'valid'? Dont necessarily assume so - there have been cases through the courts that held that the mere display of a sign is insufficient to 'prove' that the customer accepted those conditions. The drivers attention must be shown to have been brought to the conditions, and he must have demonstrated his acceptance, and the court has held that the mere act of parking does not, in and of itself, constitute that acceptance.

But thats not all of it in relation to conditions. The terms will say that if you break the conditions of parking, you 'owe' the landowner a charge of (usually about) £50. This is another potentially fatal flaw in the PPC argument should you ever make it to court, because as we all know now courtesy of the banks, the charge cannot be a penalty and can only be their measurable loss by you having broken the terms. For example, if you park such that you're preventing the bay next to you from being used, the actual loss to the PPC is the money they may have been able to charge someone else for parking in that bay. Spotted the flaw yet? Asda/Morrisons etc. are usually free car parks, so their loss is, precisely, zero. Even in a pay car park, you're probably only talking £2 or so. So where does this £50 come from? Its irrelevant for the PPC to point to the terms and say that you've "agreed to them", as every single UK bank will painfully attest. In their instance, they went all the way to the High Court to decide on whether 'penalty charges' that the customer had signed acceptance to were valid, and I'm afraid they lost. And at least the banks had your signature to prove you accepted it - what chance does the PPC stand when they cant even prove that much!

Fail to pay one of these 'tickets', and what will happen is that the PPC will obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. It costs them £2.50, and unbelievably the DVLA will happily give them the info. That's a whole new blog in its own right - that HMG are so happy to sell on our information to scammers - but the important part here is that the DVLA can only identify the keeper of the vehicle, not the driver. For legitimate tickets issued by the police or local councils, that's sufficient, because it is then the keepers responsibility to identify the driver at any given time under pain of a large fine or imprisonment. For private parking tickets, this presents the company with an immediate and usually insurmountable problem - there is no obligation for the keeper to identify a driver for a PPC, and try as they might, the PPC cant hold the keeper to be responsible. But because any 'agreement' that they are referring to in order to extract money can only be between the driver of the car and the landowner (obvious, since it is not possible to bind a third party to an agreement between first and second parties), it is now down to the PPC to show that the registered keeper was in fact the driver as well! That's very hard, but not necessarily impossible - the company could, for instance, take a photograph of the car and driver as it left the car park, but of course there's no responsibility on the driver to admit that its them!

So, for the princely sum of £2.50, the PPC now have the name and address of the keeper of the car. Now they'll write to the keeper demanding payment of the 'ticket', in some cases along with further daily charges that they threaten will continue until payment. You have two choices here - either ignore it entirely but keep it in a drawer somewhere in case you need it later, or write back and deny liability. Of course, you do have a third option, that of paying up, but if you do that after reading and understanding this post then you're a mug! If you ignore it, they'll usually send an average of three or four more letters before they give up and move on. Its perfectly possible, and depending on the company even likely, that their demands for payment will increase with each letter, and/or they'll threaten to send 'debt collection officers' or bailiffs to your home. They'll also usually 'pass on' the debt to a 'collection agency', but a bit of digging will usually uncover that the collection company and the parking company are based in the same office and have the same directors! Apart from being scammers, they're not stupid, so why do they persist in sending these demands? Because, unfortunately, a percentage of people get intimidated by the letters and just pay up regardless of whether they actually committed a parking 'offence' or not.

That is what makes me so angry about it - they are effectively intimidating people into paying. Not only are the victims out of pocket by paying, they are also encouraging the PPC to try the same trick again on the next poor unsuspecting mug. And if you write back and deny the charge, that only encourages them anyway - they realise they have a 'live' one on the line and ramp up their collection activities. So what's the best choice if you've been accosted by a PPC? Unless you're a contrary bugger like me, and just enjoy baiting them, your best bet is to completely ignore their letters unless and until one comes from a small claims court. Even if one does, read it carefully, and make sure its actually come from the court and not from the PPC 'disguised' to look like an official document. Also check that its been 'served' to the court - its not unknown for the seedier companies to send out a genuine claim form (available free from the courthouse) directly to a victim and not through the court itself. And you wonder why I call these people lowlifes?

Now lets assume that you do get served with a properly constructed claim. Now you should pay up and cut your losses, right? Nope, definitely not. In order for the court to find against you, they will need to be satisfied 'on the balance of probabilities' that all of the following have been met (in no particular order).
That you, the registered keeper of the car, were actually the driver of the car on the day the alleged contravention occurred.
That a contravention did occur (no, the PPC saying that it just did isn't sufficient).
That the driver of the car agreed to be bound by the conditions (no again, the mere display of one or more signs indicating the conditions is not, in itself, sufficient proof that the driver agreed to be so bound).
That the charge is a genuine reflection of the losses incurred by the land owner (remember the bank fiasco?!).
As I've described, the odds of them managing to fill any of these criteria are slim to none, let alone all of them, but lets for the sake of this post assume you got an anti-car judge who didn't get his end away last night or whatever, and that you lost. Here's where the small claims court service helps you out, because costs are strictly limited. The PPC wont be able to claim some ludicrous figure that they just dreamed up, and the odds are massive that it will be limited to the cost of bringing the action, i.e. between £30 and £50. Its fair, then, to treat this process with the same degree of risk assessment that you would for, say, house insurance. You weigh up the odds of losing out, the loss if you do lose out, and the cost of 'insuring' yourself against the loss (in this case, by paying the penalty at an earlier stage). You don't have to be a mathematician to work out that the odds of losing are tiny, and that even if you are unlucky enough that you are the one in a million that does lose your losses are small. So why buy the 'insurance'?

It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone reading this blog to think that, presuming what I've written is true (and it is!), surely there is something unlawful in this scam. You'd be right - there is plenty thats unlawful. The problem is that the police are disinterested and would much prefer to chase softer targets like some poor sod who'd accidentally done 34 in a 30 zone. To be perfectly honest, your odds of getting the police to take action are slim indeed, but if your drinking buddy is a flatfoot you might stand half a chance. Trading Standards have responsibility here too, but are similarly uneducated. In my case, I had to make a formal complaint about the advice I was given ("tell them who the driver was and they'll go away") before I finally got a letter from the area manager thanking me for the information I'd given and promising to re-educate his call line staff on the law in relation to this.

Because of the length of this blog post (and even then I haven't discussed all of it!) I'll try and break it down into more manageable chunks later and hopefully deal with each of the problems the PPC faces in seperate posts. In the meantime, please PLEASE dont pay one of these tickets if you get one, and if your nerve fails contact me via this blog and I'll give you all the further detail you need!

Guilty even if proved innocent

How do you fancy a scenario where someone else makes a mistake, but you end up being 'fined' as a result of it? And not a terribly unlikely scenario, either. Does that sound fair to you? And how about when, if you should be unfortunate enough to have this happen to you, you discover that the Police have an 'exemption' from liability for that, so you cant reclaim your losses? Welcome to yet another example of UK motorists victimisation!

If you've ever watched those 'Police Camera Action' type programmes on TV, you'll know that plod have long been seizing cars that are uninsured when they catch them on the roads. Possibly, like me, you'll be quite happy about that - uninsured drivers are statistically more likely to be involved in other crime, more likely to have an accident, etc. etc. What happens is that the vehicle is towed away - by a third party contractor - and stored in a 'pound' until the owner shows up with an insurance document to release it. The fee for towing it is payable before release, along with a 'storage' charge per day. If he doesn't arrive within a certain period of time, which is down to the contractor to decide, the car gets crushed. All sounds quite reasonable so far, doesn't it? Gets those bloody uninsured drivers off the road. But, here's the rub...

What happens when your insurer forgets to update the database which the police use to check if insurance is in place? Or he makes an innocent mistake, and puts in an 'M' where it should have been an 'N'? You get pulled over, and your car gets impounded, thats what happens. You think that because you carry your insurance docs with you (even though plod himself says its inadvisable to do so) you're safe? Nope, wrong again - plod has seen plenty of insurance docs that were taken out and then cancelled, so he'll only rely on his database, even when confronted with evidence his database is wrong. Where does that leave you? On the pavement, complete with wife and kids, shopping, the dog, who knows. So you get a taxi home for the insurance paperwork and then on to the pound, where they tell you that there's a £125 fee for towing your car! They couldn't give a toss that it was improperly impounded - they were called out, they did their job, they want their fee. Dont want to pay it? No problem, says the pound, we have your car. If you dont pay eventually, we'll either flog it or crush it.

What about when plod himself makes a mistake, and - for example - keys in your registration wrong when querying the database? Unless you happen to spot that and correct him, he'll still impound your car, and you have no legal recourse against him for the error later. It doesn't matter whose cockup it was for your insurance not to show up, the fact that it doesn't means that you will have to pay to get your car back. Plod couldn't care less. In fact if you'd like to argue with him about the rights and wrongs of it by the side of the road, he'll arrest you for a 'public order offence' and cart you off to the nick, where they'll take a DNA sample and your fingerprints to add to another of their databases. Yes, before you ask, they can take it forcefully if you refuse. And no, before you ask, they wont delete it if you aren't charged with any offence - there is currently no mechanism for removing data, irrespective of whether it was lawfully taken in the first place. Welcome to NuLabour...

All aboard!

One of the widely-touted reaasons put forward by HMGplc for crippling rises in the cost of private motoring is to 'encourage' us to use public transport more. Apparently we were all wrong when we guessed it was simply to raise additional income to offset the costs of their crap policies! Who would have guessed, eh?

So, its onto public transport with the lot of us then. But what public transport, precisely? Trains? Nah, cant be, can it? After all, lets not forget that one of the reasons put forward for bonkers increases in rail fares was that they were trying to price some people off the trains! There is insufficient capacity for even the current passengers on mainline routes into London, and the best way the rail operator knows to lower that number is to raise the prices until less people travel.

So, is it buses then? Ummmmm, nope, that dont work either. Outside of city centres, buses are potentially more harmful to the environment than private cars, because while they may well have the capacity for 80 passengers, only a tiny fraction of those seats are filled. A decent modern double-decker will do about 10mpg, against the 30+mpg of the average car. Travel at peak times, into popular destinations, and the bus might just edge it. The rest of the time, the bus not only doesn't go exactly where you want it to (like your car can), not only doesn't go from exactly where you want it to start from (like your car can), and not only doesn't go exactly when you want it to go there (unlike your car can), but on top of that its less fuel-efficient!

And of course with either of the choices above, you're always going to be the poor sod who gets the seat alongside the tramp. What is it about public transport passengers that makes them forget the basics of personal hygene? I dont think I've ever managed to travel on a train or a bus that didn't reek of BO! And if you manage to avoid the tramp, you get the nutter, the bloke Jasper Carrott talked about some two decades ago (and its as true now as it was then). Live in rural Pembrokeshire? Tough, catch the damn bus - we're still going to squeeze you til you bleed. C'mon, Gordon, if you're insistent that we're being bled dry just to get us to consider taking the train, at least give us some sodding trains to choose from first?

Bike nutters attack driver, and then blame HIM for the incident!

The driver who was attacked by a mob of bicyclists during Friday's monthly Critical Mass demonstration says he was "really scared" and "panicked" during the violent confrontation.

But bicyclists who were there said the driver is an "out of control" menace who purposefully ran into bikes and people with his car because he was in a hurry to get somewhere.

The altercation took place Friday evening as up to 300 bicyclists were riding down a street in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, blocking traffic on both lanes. It was part of a monthly rolling protest that asserts cyclists' rights to the road.

As the bicyclists rode by, the driver was trying to pull out of a parking spot in his Subaru station wagon near the intersection of Fifth Street and Aloha Avenue.

The exact sequence of events is unclear, but witnesses agree that the driver was blocked in by the large group of cyclists.

There was an angry exchange of words, and some bicyclists sat on the car and began banging on the vehicle.

"One guy shouted, 'Hey, we should flip the car,' and I was really scared," the driver told KOMO News in an exclusive interview.

He said someone started rocking his car and someone else spit on the hood.

"I just kind of panicked, and I was going to rev my engine, but it's a stick and I was panicking. I had it in first and I went forward and I knocked the first few bikes down," said the driver, named Mark.

But one of the bicyclists who was there has a different description of what happened.

Tom Braun said the cyclists just wanted the driver to wait until they got past. But he didn't want to wait, Braun says.

"The guy says something about being late for a reservation and just floors it into us," he said. The car hit Braun then rolled over him, dragging his leg across the road and injuring him.

"It was a clear example of road rage," Braun says. "My best guess is he didn't like all the cyclists going by."

The driver, who didn't want his full name revealed, says he stopped a half-block later and that's when his car was destroyed.

"They broke out the front window, the back window," he says. "They slashed all the tires and the whole passenger side has big fist sized dents all along it."

Mark was also struck in the back of the head with a bike lock, and his tires were slashed. He ended up in the hospital.

He says he never meant to hurt anyone.

"I overreacted and freaked out and got upset, but I was surrounded by a mob of people and I felt really threatened and I apologize if I hurt anyone," he says.

But Braun counters: "He was out of control."

Two bicyclists were arrested and police are looking for the suspect who struck the driver in the back of the head.

What is People Who Drive Cars?

Outrageous fuel prices. The 'fuel escalator'. Disproportionately high 'road tax' rises. Congestion charging. Horrifying car park fees. Wardens on every corner. Cameras behind every tree. Lengthening traffic jams, and mile-long roadworks with nobody working on them. Sanctimonious halfwits whining about your carbon footprint. And then a bunch of sandal-clad lentil-scoffers harping on about 'reclaiming THEIR streets'.

Feeling persecuted yet? You're right... we are. People Who Drive Cars sets about redresing the balance somewhat. Dispell a few myths, point out a few home truths. And if you want to just let off steam and call everyone else a retard, well you can do that too! Remember, though, that this is a public blog and young people can read it, and also that slagging off your oponent is usually the first sign that you've run out of decent argument.